[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: List Ettiquette



On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 11:02 PM, JoeHill<joehill@teksavvy.com> wrote:
> Neal Hogan wrote:
>
>> <using gmail . . . rich formatting . . . clicked "repy to all">
>> <oh . . . and this is top-posted>
>> get over the email format!
>
> It's called being polite, and putting other people's needs ahead of your own.
> It's not a bad thing, it's a human thing.
>
>> gmail provides a nice gui-riffic format that many feel comfortable
>> using. I don't get where this complaining about client usage is going.
>> If you a want  more "pure" OS, then . . . ummmm . . . go somewhere
>> else.
>
> It's not a question of 'pure', it's a question of standards. The reason we are
> all able to communicate is that we all agree to a standard set of symbols to
> convey meaning.

I forget when we made this agreement :)

>If someone comes on here and starts asking us to forgive the
> fact that they use different letters than we do, we're gonna say 'go f
> yourself', and with good reason.
>

I have yet to see someone use different letters.

> Standards are the reason we're all here. Standards are the reason we use things
> like Debian. Standards are the reason that Debian works.

It does . . . no disagreement here. But, to expect users to use the
standards that are not clear enough to eliminate gmail as standard is
silly.

Certainly, there is a certain level of etiquette that "should" be
adhered to and that is something that can/may be curbed, but as I say,
gmail is a service that is going to be used (and is not the cause of
impoliteness). Bitcing about gmail is silly.

>
> Can people deviate? Yes. Is it a good thing for people to deviate from
> standards once in awhile? Absolutely. Should they be surprised or confused when
> someone calls them on it? Not if they have a working brain.

Clearly.

>
> --
> J
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>


Reply to: